Talk:Ptolemaida

Does this meet our "criteria" for WikiGazetteer entries? DCDuring TALK 23:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - all words in all languages. SemperBlotto 08:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and review CFI on this issue, if necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that we only kept countries, primary regions, and capitals thereof. We have CFI, which this does not meet. We supposedly had a consensus to ignore CFI for certain places. Under AGF, I must assume that a new consensus has emerged or that SB and MG have had a lapse of memory. It can't be that both CFI and the consensus are being ignored, can it? DCDuring TALK 13:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd quite like to see evidence of this consensus. Anyway, unfortunately this is one of the areas of the CFI that's never been implemented, and as I say, I'm against proposing stuff like this on WT:RFV as our rules are totally unusable, so it will just come down to a vote anyway. Would you want Leeds and Bradford to get deleted as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love them to be, but I'm not on a search-and-destroy mission. I just tag the ones I see on clean up lists and sometimes put them here, partially to see whether thinking has changed at all. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My memory (such as remains at my age) is that several votes have been started on this subject, and all have deteriorated into slanging matches about what should be voted on. I'm pretty sure that no consensus has ever been reached. SemperBlotto 10:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe (memory-gap-concealing weasel word) that EP (and Ruakh ?, Visviva ?, DAVilla ? [more weaseling]) had asserted that there had been a consensus on this when I had challenged some city entry (perhaps Rostov-na-Donu?). Even a merely temporary consensus on a contentious topic should be documented. If it cannot survive the effort to do so, then there must not be a real consensus. The difficulty is that in the absence of a consensus for something other than CFI, CFI seems applicable. It is difficult to wantonly ignore CFI without undermining its legitimacy for justifying some patrolling decisions.
 * I'd be willing to sweep this under the rug for another few months. But I would like to know whether this even meets the asserted consensus criteria. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in the absence of anything better to do with legitimate place names. I hope one day they'll go to a separate gazetteer project. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per SemperBlotto (1st CFI sentence, before the table of contents). And I don't think we should be a gazeeter, we should not include population or the like, only linguistic info about the word, such as etymology, pronunciation, translations, anagrams, demonyms, derived terms, etc. and definition (most difficult part, the best definition may be a map showing the location). Lmaltier 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept, majority. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)